The percentage of voters who change their minds has grown—we’ve seen this in the last two elections—and 4% changed their minds over the final weekend, following the party leaders’ debate. The fact that we live in a globalized world—where events in Ukraine, Iran, and the U.S. affect our daily lives more than Swedish politicians do—makes it difficult for incumbent governments to perform well; this is a macro trend evident in nearly all Western democratic elections. People vote for a change in government; the incumbent government may have done a good job, but with the international focus, it’s hard to say what the current government deserves credit for—or whether things would get worse after a change in government. Most often, people vote against a negative trend—a dynamic that benefits populist parties, which have, after all, surged in popularity across nearly the entire Western world. They’re skilled at framing the problems, and when domestic politics is perceived as increasingly ineffective at solving them, that’s enough to win over voters. But the desire for positive change remains, so people tend to vote either for those who frame the problems or for those who are perceived as most capable of governing but aren’t currently in power. It depends somewhat on how concerned people are. Those who are most concerned tend to gravitate toward the parties that frame the issues. For example, the Sweden Democrats (SD) on crime or the Green Party (MP) on climate change. But the expectation of a solution isn’t the main focus; rather, it’s about demonstrating that the problem is so significant, and a desire to get the other parties to address and solve the problems.

But really, people want to vote for things to get better; however, that’s difficult because politicians don’t believe they can win elections by promoting hope for the future—they tend to get bogged down in the problems and in assigning blame, which also pays off in the media. Say something provocative about someone else, and you’ll dominate the media cycle—which is also essential for politicians to reach voters. Nearly all Swedes follow the news at least once a day—that is, traditional media like SVT, SR, and TV4—and that’s where you reach voters, but even there, conflicts are prioritized over visions. Visions may seem detached from reality because they aren’t a here-and-now issue, so it can be harder for newsrooms to consider them a priority in the daily news cycle—after all, there’s always something happening that they deem “breaking news,” such as a violent crime, a tragic death, or a scandal that takes over the entire news agenda. Politics must respond to this and get caught up in the logic of the media, focusing on provoking rather than inspiring enthusiasm for visions.

It will then be difficult for the current government to defend its position; what is presented in the news will naturally also serve as an underlying criticism of the government, since the government is responsible, and what is considered news is usually something that has gone wrong.

The opposition automatically has an easier time of it, and this means that there is usually a change in government after every election in the Western world. It also leads to growing uncertainty among voters and increasing voter mobility; ideology takes a back seat, and politics becomes more about patching up various issues that have gone awry in a world as unstable as ours.